The screen. Love the articulation, I wish my Hasselblad had one.The touch screen. So clever, love how I can focus by touch.The EVF. Love how it lets me see into pitch black ruins before I get the real camera out.The price.The format.

Things I really hate.

The screen. Hopeless in Mediterranean light, but there again so is any screen.The touch screen. See above.The EVF. Needs a few years.

Things I'm indifferent about.

The sensor, particularly the size. Nothing to get excited about.

I think we are less forgiving in the digital world than we were with analog.

In analog, film cameras, were film cameras. If we looked at epr and it was grainy, despite it's asa of 64 we accepted it, used the film for the look and moved on.

If we wanted tighter imagery, we could move to provia, or before that Kodachrome, or larger formats, but even then if an image had grain, a certain lack of detail or only offered 8 or 10 stops of latitude, we worked around it, learned how to make the most of it, actually learned how to make the limitations work for us and produce something unique.

I firmly believe low key, crushed shadow film photography was a result of transparency films lack of latitude, which to me was fine.

Today, we look at a computer and compare grain, sharpness, detail until our eyes bleed.

Maybe it's the genres I work in, but I personally don't care about seeing perfect, pin sharp detail from the front of the lens to the horizon line of the planet. It means nothing to me.

In fact the some styles of photography that bore me shitless are over produced imagery. Cosmetics, cars some product photography falls into this.

To me they all look the same, over retouched, over sharp, over detailed, with zero amount of humanity left in the image.

I assume the people that shoot this dream of 2 billion megapixels and 20 stops of dr and if these segments move to complete cg I don't think any consumer would know the difference.

BTW: I'm not dissing anyone's work, because I've shot a warehouse full of over retouched imagery that may be the standard, may have pleased the client, but is as believable as a lobbyist for the NRA.

Anyway, I went off topic.

These little 4/3's cameras amaze me. The evf takes some getting use to and may be a work in progress, but compared to most modern dslrs with there tiny little viewfinders and over bright ground plastic are a huge liability.

Actually I would rather use these evfs than the current crop of dslr optical viewfinders.

The only digital camera I've owned with a good optical finder was the kodak dcs 760 based on an F5 Nikon.

After that they all got small and goofy.

With 4/3's manual focus is pin sharp and though at first it throws you to turn a ring and see a full length person zoomed in at eyeball detail, you can manually focus them, even without the zoom function.

The autofocus points are anywhere on the frame. Anywhere . . . and that I love. I

They'll shoot 25 still frames at 5 to 9 fps, switch immediately to video, or not and if someone doesn't like the video function, they don't have to hit the button, though if you work in art or commerce, the ability to have one multimedia camera in a small package is something that all camera makers should address.

The GH3 is virtually not hobbled. It's not a medium format back (good), it's not a RED Epic (even better), because both of those systems are single purpose items that require a lot of light, a lot of support and a lot of post time.

Your not bogged down in $10,000 fluid heads, or a dit station that must be hooked to you every time you shoot.

In regards to the sensor I can make it work. It's not a ccd, but it's not a generic cmos look either. It does take some thought in post processing because of noise and it's size, but I've got the gh3 to the point I can make 4 very pretty films, that the client can see directly to an ipad when I shoot.

The OMD I'll know a lot more about when it comes in Friday.

I don't think anyone should underestimate the wireless functions to an ipad and the in camera settings these cameras allow.

You can get so close to the final look of the image in the jpeg that's send to a tablet, while having the flexibility of a raw file that can be altered anyway you wish.

Now, these cameras are not perfect and are not made for the nose on the screen crowd, but then again, I don't think anyone should view a photograph were their nose on it, though if your adept at post processing, sharpening layers with different channels I can get a very close resemblance to a non AA ccd camera.

Now back to the original topic, the Sony and the Leica. The Sony shoots a little better still file, but leaves me cold, the Leica warms my heart, but it is a very limited single purpose camera.

I would buy both for different reasons, but they would get 1/10th of the use of my new 4/3's cameras. Of that I'm sure.

Things I would like from 4/3's. More primes that are longer and fast, like the Olympus original 4/3 150 F2.

Also more robust wireless. The eyefy card is more stable than the in camera wi-fi, but a little slower.

I'd also like the OMD to be 20% physically larger. It's not too small but almost too small. The size of the original olympus om series was perfect.

The new Olympus range finder style camera is amazing and actually offers more than the omd. The only problem with it is it's tiny, tiny. I like smaller cameras, but not that fit in the palm of the hand.

One thing to note. Today in commerce getting work is not hard, turning a profit is. Numbers are slashed and every creative brief almost doubles in scope from estimate to delivery and clients are adamant in holding you to the original estimate.

Smaller cameras cost less, use less power, cost less to ship, support, replace.

I hate to sacrifice quality for money, but when you get to a 5% difference to less than full frame 35mm, 15% difference from most FF dslrs, it adds up.

What you can shoot with still and video on these cameras is bloody amazing.

This month we are shooting in 5 U.S. cities, next month, 3 european. then later Asia. Carrying 3,000 lbs of equipment is a money suck.

With 4/3's I can shoot the project with one camera bag, one case of constant leds, one grip case with some air stands and supports and rent on the road the few things like Kinos or HMI;'s if they are really needed.

Actually we've added L plates to all these cameras, converted our video friction/hydraulic heads to work as still and motion supports.

The best thing is after shooting commerce in Paris and London, I can take this small kit, line up some editorial or personal work and not break the bank shooting it.

All I can say is if you approach these 4/3's cameras as serious equipment and not a b camera or afterthought I think most people will be amazed the freedom they offer.

Sorry if this sounds like a commercial, because that's not my plan.

IMO

BC

P.S. since I've rambled on so long I might as well add this.

These cameras won't replace my RED's or medium format, even some of the larger dslrs for everything. I'm not that stuck with any system, but they will do a lot more than most people think, at least in the genre's I work.

Rob C and KLaban, I agree that there is something of a trend for new ideas to be tried in smaller, higher sales volume formats first, with the successful experiments then working up to higher end products -- and "mirror-free" digital system cameras are a good candidate for super-sizing. In fact it is looking likely that Sony will try this soon.

But to Rob C: larger format mirrorless systems would _add_ to the options, not cause the disappearance of the smaller formats, which will(a) continue to meet and exceed the performance needs of a great many photographic enthusiasts and some professional work(b) maintain a natural advantage in _camera_ size, due to lens size, particularly for people who want significant telephoto reach(c) maintain a natural and substantial advantage in cost: despite perpetual predictions of 35mm format digital reaching mainstream pricing, the cheapest 35mm DSLR bodies still cost four times as much as entry level DLSRs, and as much as the most expensive Canon and Nikon film SLRs, despite being far lower spec. on the non-digtial side than an F6 or EOS-1V.

These cameras won't replace my RED's or medium format, even some of the larger dslrs for everything. I'm not that stuck with any system, but they will do a lot more than most people think, at least in the genre's I work.

As much as I value many of the features of the 4/3 cameras the fact is I'm not any longer working principally for the printed page. These days a client is just as likely to ask for a letter box crop and 2 metre+ prints.

I agree that there is something of a trend for new ideas to be tried in smaller, higher sales volume formats first, with the successful experiments then working up to higher end products -- and "mirror-free" digital system cameras are a good candidate for super-sizing. In fact it is looking likely that Sony will try this soon.

The Leica M240 is on back-order and isn't likely to be available off-shelf until this time next year by which time the Leica M360 will be due and Sony will have introduced the RX2, RX3 and RX4 in varying focal lengths which will be selling like hotcakes and available anytime, anywhere.

I don't think anybody doubts for a moment Sony doesn't have the ability in electronics to make anything they want, when they want to.

The problem is Sony is the king of hobbling cameras to protect or move people up to higher markets.

The fs100 could be a 10 bit 422 camera easily. The format is big enough to hold the processors of the F the sensor is the same size. The FS700 could go beyond that, but they don't.

The A99 could easily be a 20 mpx something still camera with live view, 4k filmic video, touch screen autofocus, variable format crops, everything the gh3 and the Olympus omd have and more, but they don't. In fact they offer less than most of the competition, which is strange because they've tried for years to get a strong foothold in the professional world.

Their Zeiss lenses are excellent, the build quality of the A99 is on of the best ever made, but you know that whatever you buy today will be changed in a year and a half.

Sure all camera makers do that today, but changing a $1,200 camera every 2 years is a lot less painful than $7,000 a body.

I don't know if the smaller cameras will drive the larger ones and if they do, it should work the opposite way. A lexus will do more than a Toyota and a few years later the toyota will get some lexus features.

The camera world works in the opposite way.

Now, I'd love to see a $7,000 camera do more than a $1,200 camera, but today except for megapixels, that just isn't the case and I don't see it changing soon, unless the larger cameras market share drops drastically.

I'm not knocking Sony, because much of what they do mirrors canon and nikon.

I just think these overly large dslrs (and btw they are big. My 1dx weighs as much as my contax and medium format backs), are more endangered than most of us suspect.

On location, large dslrs are a little more useful and efficient than medium format, less costly and produce an excellent file, but they are at the heart still cameras with limited use.

Sure they serve a purpose, so does medium format, but they have limitations.

It's interesting that today, the web portal that I find inspiring is tumbler. What amateurs and professionals are producing with small cameras is real, gritty, believable and sometimes very creative.

The cameras these people use just don't get in the way of anything and open up a lot of possibilities.

I just received a style board from an ad agency on an upcoming project that was 90% base on tumbler/blog style imagery. Not that we'll exactly produce anything that was shown, but the result is they want that real look, just more professional and creative.

At no point did anyone talk about megapixels, or eyelash detail.

I think 4/3's is on to something, maybe they're a fraction small, a fraction less detailed than newer high mpx cameras, but I believe if there were more than two makers producing this format, Sony being one, I think this format would take off like crazy, for pro and amateur alike.

One thing I'm amazed that no camera format has what 4/3's has is an adjustable format. I can set one camera for horizontals at 2:3 and only see a 2:3 frame with no red lines, no half toned crop marks. Do the same for 4:3's vertical.

Since we shoot both still and motion and a lot of stills go into video, the gh3 has a function that allows you to see a 16x9 video crop for stills, but when you shoot stills the full 4:3 format records the scene, but your mind is wrapped around 16x9 which makes an easy fit for insertion into video, but allows you more area to crop and move if you so desire.

No camera I know of the in the larger formats allow that.

Now knowing all of this, if Sony made a x1 with interchangeable lenses, multiple crops, larger lens line, 72mbs video, that had sound sampling, sound input, an evf and . . . well everything the gh3 had, I'd seriously think about going that direction.

I don't see that happening.

Now if Leica did the above, I'd be over the moon, but Leica seems quite content in selling exclusivity and bling.

If we're going to have to have large cameras for professional work, I don't expect all of these features, I demand them, in fact when it comes to equipment, I view it the way our client's view professional production.

In my Santa Monica Neighborhood, I live next to 4 people in our industry. One person in effects production, one a wardrobe designer for movies, another a commercial production producer and us.

We talk about once a week and all have the same exact story. Today, we produce 3 times the content, for around 1/2 the price of 2007 and clients expect more quality, more return. Period.

That's what I expect from equipment makers, 3 times the value, 1/2 the price.

I know that's a lot to ask for but that is the reality of commerce today.

Funny, I thought the photographer was responsible for the image. I guess it is the camera. That should reenforce all I need to be a photographer is a DSLR.

And product announcements are not upgrade requirements. I never bought a camera just because it was a new release. No new release is going to make your work better.

Now, I know it is fashionable to bash the manufacturers, but I think photographers are going to have to step up to the plate and take responsibility for their work and not just sit around for the tech folks to solver their problems for them.

Now knowing all of this, if Sony made a x1 with interchangeable lenses, multiple crops, larger lens line, 72mbs video, that had sound sampling, sound input, an evf and . . .

Every time I pick up the M 4/3 I think how damn clever it is but then go on to use something else.

I guess we all have these lists of features we'd like to see on our perfect camera and yet many of us still choose to use the simplistic behemoths that do precious little for us which is of course one of the reasons why we love 'em. Back to basics or perhaps simple things for simple minds?

Funny, I thought the photographer was responsible for the image. I guess it is the camera. That should reenforce all I need to be a photographer is a DSLR.

And product announcements are not upgrade requirements. I never bought a camera just because it was a new release. No new release is going to make your work better.

Now, I know it is fashionable to bash the manufacturers, but I think photographers are going to have to step up to the plate and take responsibility for their work and not just sit around for the tech folks to solver their problems for them.

Funny, I thought the photographer was responsible for the image. I guess it is the camera. That should reenforce all I need to be a photographer is a DSLR.

And product announcements are not upgrade requirements. I never bought a camera just because it was a new release. No new release is going to make your work better.

Now, I know it is fashionable to bash the manufacturers, but I think photographers are going to have to step up to the plate and take responsibility for their work and not just sit around for the tech folks to solver their problems for them.

I think you can make great photos with whatever you have and STLL bitch about features. The two activities aren't mutually exclusive.

I love Micro 4/3 cameras and have two small ones and am waiting for Olympus to update the OMD - but - there are two issues that prevent me from using them in place of my full size cameras when I travel. Noisy sensors and the lack of fast high quality lenses. They are great in many ways - but just to the point yet where I can leave my others at home.

Most times when someone says what they like or dislike about a camera we get a response of it's not the camera it's the photographer.

That's true, in fact that's kind of silly that it has to be brought up.

The point I was making is I never considered smaller formats, always felt larger was better and to a great deal of extent they are, or were when the commercial world allowed more time, required less forms of content.

The point I was making is a 4, 5, 6, or 7 grand camera should be offering what these little thousand dollar cameras offer.

Nikon I find the strangest when it comes to motion and still cameras, because they have no market to protect. They don't have a super 35mm digital film camera, or engs. I would think they could have produced a virtual do anything camera.

Does't matter, I have a lot of stuff, will continue to use it, but I was just trying to illustrate that there is a lot of goodness in these small cameras.

As a fashion and portrait photographer who shot exclusively on M9's, I bought a Hasselblad H3D 2 39Mpx and it's good. More resolution than the Leica of course and GREAT color and skin tones (for me) but not a big difference at all. Just from a resolution standpoint it's not a big enough deal to make up for the weight of the H3D but when you add in the color improvement of the H3D and it's viewfinder then it gives the H3D a place in my camera bag. Last weekend I shot some on my new RX100 (not RX1) and printed some images at 11*14 and put them next to the Leica prints and I was shocked at how close they were. Really close and sometimes I prefer the color rendition of the Sony. Makes me think very hard about getting an RX1..

As a fashion and portrait photographer who shot exclusively on M9's, I bought a Hasselblad H3D 2 39Mpx and it's good. More resolution than the Leica of course and GREAT color and skin tones (for me) but not a big difference at all. Just from a resolution standpoint it's not a big enough deal to make up for the weight of the H3D but when you add in the color improvement of the H3D and it's viewfinder then it gives the H3D a place in my camera bag. Last weekend I shot some on my new RX100 (not RX1) and printed some images at 11*14 and put them next to the Leica prints and I was shocked at how close they were. Really close and sometimes I prefer the color rendition of the Sony. Makes me think very hard about getting an RX1..

well, I don't want it showing up in searches so I'll type it so it won't show up in google it's wof fin den dot com (with a dot instead of the word and no spaces obviously)

Thanks for the link - nice website, and Salma Hayek blew me away when I saw her in Dusk Till Dawn and Desesperados with that Spanish guy that got it together with Ms Griffiths (I can't usually remember men's names, today I couldn't even remember Sheryl Crow's for about ten mimutes - maybe there's a pill for that).

The girl in the series starting No. 7 looks very like Helena Christensen - am I right or were you just lucky to find a face double?